Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2008, 11:17 PM   #16
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by cputeq Quote
Thanks for the information.

I'm waiting patiently for comparisons between this and Sigma's upcoming 70-200 f/2.8.
I'm considering going Sigma and then buying their 2x APO TC for wildlife on the long end, but I'll have to see how IQ compares between the two lenses.
Which up and coming Sigma? It has been out quite a while. No?

Ben

06-11-2008, 01:25 AM   #17
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
which Up And Coming Sigma? It Has Been Out Quite A While. No?

Ben
No
..............................
06-11-2008, 01:16 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Albert Siegel's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 344
Original Poster
Update... the weather has not been good all day, but I did manage a few shots. I was stunned to see just how much better the Tamron was than the Canon. The Tamron is a real winner when it comes to optics. I might just keep it and sell the Canon. The Tamron will be on any Pentax owners list when its available.

I decided to post links to the photos rather than post them here since they are so large. All the photos are out of camera with no work done at all. The only thing I have done is change the file name. No PP at all.

Tamron 70mm 2.8

Tamron 70mm 4.0

Tamron 70mm 5.6

Tamron 200mm 2.8 -- file damaged

Tamron 200mm 4.0

Tamron 200mm 5.6

Canon 70mm 2.8

Canon 70mm 4.0

Canon 70mm 5.6

Canon 200mm 2.8

Canon 200mm 4.0

Canon 200mm 5.6

Last edited by Albert Siegel; 06-12-2008 at 10:41 AM.
06-11-2008, 01:20 PM   #19
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
I can't seem to figure out why Canon likes those ''ugly'' white lenses...yuk

06-11-2008, 01:29 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Albert Siegel's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 344
Original Poster
links are fixed... please feel free to view the photos and share opinions
06-11-2008, 04:38 PM   #21
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 5
Hi AlbertSiegel !!

Thanks for your update. The links Tamron 200mm 2.8 and Canon 70mm 4.0 arenīt good !!

Thanks !!
06-11-2008, 04:48 PM   #22
Veteran Member
vizjerei's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,418
so~ it is a great lens, and i heard it is around $500~600, which is nice. And I have no idea why I bid on the 50-135... while i told myself to wait for this lens... I am just stupid.
06-11-2008, 05:30 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 478
To answer the guy who asked about white lenses, its because it helps them stay cooler especially lenses with a Flourite element. I love the white.

06-12-2008, 07:22 AM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
The "white" lenses are also awesome! I have had the 70-200mm f/4 IS for a couple of months now, and it compares optically (and in handling/weight/size) with the DA* 50-135mm (I think the Canon is a little longer/heavier, but they seem close) Focuses much more quickly (on my 40D) than the 50135 did on my K10D

Last week I got the HEAVY 100-400 IS (yay Stimulus check!), but haven't had much of a chance to use it yet (HOT here in the Northeast) but from my limited use, it also seems stellar.

So I would probably take these L zooms if they were pink! But white (actually off-white, leaning towards (18%?) grey) works!
06-12-2008, 07:44 AM   #25
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by Zhuravlik Quote
Hi AlbertSiegel !!

Thanks for your update. The links Tamron 200mm 2.8 and Canon 70mm 4.0 arenīt good !!

Thanks !!
Still aren't
06-12-2008, 08:01 AM   #26
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
The "white" lenses are also awesome! I have had the 70-200mm f/4 IS for a couple of months now, and it compares optically (and in handling/weight/size) with the DA* 50-135mm (I think the Canon is a little longer/heavier, but they seem close) Focuses much more quickly (on my 40D) than the 50135 did on my K10D

Last week I got the HEAVY 100-400 IS (yay Stimulus check!), but haven't had much of a chance to use it yet (HOT here in the Northeast) but from my limited use, it also seems stellar.

So I would probably take these L zooms if they were pink! But white (actually off-white, leaning towards (18%?) grey) works!
So are the white lenses Canons version of the DA* or FA* versions of Pentax?
In other words, they are white to signify they are the high end lenses?
06-12-2008, 08:19 AM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
Canon "L" lenses are their premium line. Not all are white. Except for the 180mm macro and 200mm f/2.8, I believe all the long L telephoto primes/zooms are white. All other Ls are black (short primes and zooms).

AFAIK, all L lenses are pretty spectacular, they run the price gamut from ~$500 (70-200mm f/4 non-IS and the 17-40mm f/4) to upwards of $6-8K (their 600mm f/4 or newly released 200mm f/2 IS) I've read reports that the longer lenses are white because they contain a fluorite element which could get messed up in the heat.

The next L on myy radar is the 24-70mm f/2.8 (need to book a few more weddings/B'nai Mitzvot first)

There are also a bunch of non-L lenses which are really good. I have the 85mm f/1.8 and it compares very nicely with the 77mm Limited.

EDIT - Also, the 135mm f/2.0 is black. That's a lens I would love to own!

Last edited by egordon99; 06-12-2008 at 08:26 AM.
06-12-2008, 08:48 AM   #28
Not Registered
Guest




I have read some reports of Canon users complaining about BF/FF in the tamron 70-200. Regarding the Canon lenses I think that from 85 and above they have some good deals (85 f1.8, 100 f2, 200 f2.8...). The problems come from 85 to wide angle, for quality lenses at that level you usually need to donate a kidney.
06-12-2008, 08:57 AM   #29
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
Canon "L" lenses are their premium line. Not all are white. Except for the 180mm macro and 200mm f/2.8, I believe all the long L telephoto primes/zooms are white. All other Ls are black (short primes and zooms).

AFAIK, all L lenses are pretty spectacular, they run the price gamut from ~$500 (70-200mm f/4 non-IS and the 17-40mm f/4) to upwards of $6-8K (their 600mm f/4 or newly released 200mm f/2 IS) I've read reports that the longer lenses are white because they contain a fluorite element which could get messed up in the heat.

The next L on myy radar is the 24-70mm f/2.8 (need to book a few more weddings/B'nai Mitzvot first)

There are also a bunch of non-L lenses which are really good. I have the 85mm f/1.8 and it compares very nicely with the 77mm Limited.

EDIT - Also, the 135mm f/2.0 is black. That's a lens I would love to own!
Hmm, good to know. I have never looked into the canon stuff, but I know a few people that have them. I still think the white lenses are ugly, but then I also don't like the look of the Pentax Silver lenses. This of course would not keep me from buying a silver or a white lens.
06-12-2008, 09:00 AM   #30
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
QuoteOriginally posted by Gruoso Quote
I have read some reports of Canon users complaining about BF/FF in the tamron 70-200. Regarding the Canon lenses I think that from 85 and above they have some good deals (85 f1.8, 100 f2, 200 f2.8...). The problems come from 85 to wide angle, for quality lenses at that level you usually need to donate a kidney.
One thing that does not make a lot of sense to me is that the ''IS'' lenses cost so much more than none IS lenses. Why not build the shake reduction into the body and save the consumer money by not having to sell expensive lenses?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
70-200mm, canon, focus, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, shot, slr lens, tamron, tamron 70-200mm, test, tomorrow
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New to Pentax from the Canon Camp Pentax equivalent to Canon 70-200mm f/4 L frank2001 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 53 12-23-2009 05:07 PM
Canon FL 200mm f/3.5 on Canon 40D Fixcinater Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 0 11-22-2009 03:56 PM
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 nah Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 12-08-2008 01:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top